extraordinary remedy that the Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.s Similarly for the Application for Review.6 40. lt is therefore clear that the Applicant has exhausted all the available ordinary remedies that he was required to exhaust. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection based on the non-exhaustion of all local remedies proposed by the Respondent State. ii. objection based on alleged non-compliance with a reasonable time 41. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant filed this Application five (5) years and two (2) months, after the Respondent State deposited the Declaration prescribed under Article 34(6) of the protocol. 42. The Respondent State maintains that the Application is inadmissible on the grounds that it has not complied with the conditions of admissibility envisaged in Rule 40 (6) of the Rules. 43. The Respondent State relying on the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in Majuru v. Zimbabwe,T maintains that six (6) months is a reasonable period within which the Application should have been filed. 44. ln his Reply, the Applicant refutes the Respondent State's allegations on reasonable time and argues that the Declaration filed under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol was deposited thirty (30) months after the Court of Appeal's Judgment in Criminal Case No.22812005. The Applicant adds that, at that time, he was already incarcerated following his conviction and moreover, he had no access to information. s Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment paras. 6s; Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania Judgment op.cit. paras. 66-70; Application No.011/201S. Judgment ot 2BtO9t2O17 Christopher Jonas v United , Republic of Tanzania. (Christopher Jonas v Tanzania Judgment) para.44 6 Alex Thomas v Tanzania J udgment para. 63. 7 v. Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 146. (ACHpR 2OOB). Y ( g 7L